Democrat

Candidate name: Benjamin L. Cardin

Place of residence: Baltimore

Date of birth: Oct. 5, 1943

Place of birth: Baltimore

Current occupation: Member, U.S. House of Representatives

Education: BA, University of Pittsburgh; JD, University of Maryland School of Law

Professional associations: Former chairman, Maryland Legal Services Corp; former member, St. Mary’s College Board of Trustees; former trustee of the Baltimore Council on Foreign Affairs; Board of Visitors, University of Maryland School of Law.

Family: Wife, Myrna; Daughter (Deborah); Son-in-Law (Jonathan); Granddaughters (Madeline, 6; Julia, 3)

Campaign office address and phone number: 22 Bloomsbury Ave., Catonsville MD, 410-366-1900

Web site: www.bencardin.com

Link to state Board of Elections campaign finance database

1. Access to high quality education and healthcare for all Americans

2. Creation of good-paying jobs and a secure retirement for all workers

3. Energy Independence for the United States through development of alternative energy sources; renewable energy sources; conservation and efficiency.

How would you rate the performance of the U.S. Senate – excellent, good, fair or poor? Why?

Poor.

Under Republican control neither body of Congress has fulfilled its oversight responsibility of the Executive Branch under the Bush Administration. This failure has proven costly in many areas, from the War in Iraq, respect for human rights internationally, to our record budget and trade deficits. Many of these costs are seen immediately, but for others the long-term consequences will be even greater.

Among the greatest leadership failures, the Senate has not provided a comprehensive energy policy for the nation that would move us towards independence. The Senate has also ratified the budget policies of the Bush Administration that have moved us from federal surpluses to long-term, structural and untenable budget deficits.

Do you have a timeline on when the U.S. should pull out of Iraq?

I have called for the President to start bringing our troops home from Iraq. That would be the right message to send to the Iraqis: they must assume the responsibility for security of their own country.

The President came to Congress in October 2002 and asked Congress to authorize force against Iraq. I voted against giving the President this authority, and parted ways with most of my colleagues in Congress. This was not a popular vote at the time, but it was the right vote. I was proud of my vote then as I am now. Since that vote, I have remained an outspoken critic of President Bush’s policies in Iraq.

The President still says that we must stay the course. We need to immediately change course in Iraq, which must include the drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq. We currently have approximately 130,000 troops in Iraq, roughly 20 percent of which are Guard and Reserve troops. Military experts have recommended a drawdown of at least 10,000 troops a month. It is not necessary for us to announce a specific timeline for the withdrawal of our troops. It is reasonable to expect, however, that one-half of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2006, and that all of our combat troops should come home by the end of 2007. We should make sure that our National Guard are the first to come home, as they were never intended to be used as the primary military force for overseas conflicts. Our Guard units should be made available for local needs.

How should the government pay for the war on terror?

Congress must insist on responsible, pay-as-you-go budgeting. I have consistently opposed the Bush Administration’s budgets, which has increased our deficit, given tax cuts to the very rich, and made deep cuts in education, health care, and environmental programs.

I believe that Congress should require that Iraq and Afghanistan war costs be made part of the regular budgeting process. Congress must exercise increased oversight of the Administration’s military and reconstruction spending, and must hold the Administration accountable for waste, fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the cumulative cost of the global war on terror could reach $634 billion by FY2010 and $808 billion by FY2016.

We need to start bringing our troops home immediately and work to internationalize efforts to stabilize Iraq. Both of these actions would reduce the huge burdens currently on American taxpayers. We must also transform our military to meet the 21st century terrorist threat. I have strongly supported and voted in favor of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, which helps to realign the military away from the old Soviet threat and refocuses our efforts on the war on terrorism in the 21st century. The 2005 BRAC Round will save approximately $35 billion over the next 20 years, and will also encourage the services to work together more closely and improve joint military operations.

Would you make any changes to the way the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is run?

Changes are necessary at DHS. After the disaster of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress must act quickly to overhaul the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). First, we should require that FEMA Directors have significant disaster planning and management experience, and expand FEMA’s power in an emergency. Responsibility for both emergency preparedness and response should also be reunited within the agency.

Second, I also support shifting our federal funding formula to focus on intelligence, risks, and vulnerabilities. Under a proper formula, Maryland should receive additional funds due to its proximity to Washington and the number of sensitive facilities in the state.

Third, Congress should also take immediate action to implement all of the recommendations of the 9⁄11 Commission. We need to do a better job in screening passengers and cargo on commercial airlines. We need to improve information sharing between the federal government and the state and local governments. Nearly five years after the 9⁄11 terrorist attack, we must finally provide an adequate radio spectrum for first responders which is interoperability and allows emergency responders to communication with each other.

What should be done to save Social Security?

Social Security is the most successful federal program in our nation’s history. It was created in 1935 as a federal insurance program to protect Americans when they can no longer work because of age or disability, and to provide their spouses and children with a reliable source of income.

Hard-working Americans have paid a portion of their wages through employer and employee payroll taxes into Social Security their entire careers in return for guaranteed benefits when they retire or become disabled. Social Security is the main source of income for two-thirds of older Americans, and the only source of income for one-third.

Congress can address Social Security’s long-term funding problems by making minor adjustments and without cutting benefits or undermining a system that has worked well for the past 70 years.

I oppose privatization schemes for Social Security, which would allow individuals to divert a portion of payroll tax contributions into private accounts. These private accounts will do nothing to extend the solvency of Social Security; rather they would weaken the system and threaten benefits for surviving spouses and children, beneficiaries with disabilities, and retirees.

Congress should work to extend the long-term solvency of Social Security by allowing the Social Security Trustees to take control of the Trust Fund so that it can no longer be used to mask the size of our federal deficit. Congress should also build upon the steps taken by the 2001 provisions I authored — a tax credit for lower-income savers and raising limits for contributions to IRAs and 401(k) plans — to increase opportunities for Americans to augment their retirement savings through other defined benefit and defined contribution plans.

What should be done to save Medicare?

The Medicare Part A Trust Fund is now estimated to be solvent through 2018. With the first baby boomers approaching Medicare-eligibility age, it is essential that we preserve Medicare as a guaranteed benefit program that provides universal coverage for seniors and persons with disabilities. Rather than reduce reimbursements to community hospitals, doctors, and allied health professionals as some have proposed, Congress must ensure fair payments to providers to preserve access to care.

In 1997, my bill, the Medicare Preventive Benefit Improvement Act became law. This legislation added preventive benefits for all 40 million Medicare beneficiaries, including screening for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer, bone mass measurement for osteoporosis, and coverage for diabetes testing supplies. These services, which improve the detection of deadly diseases, reduce Medicare costs, and even more importantly, save lives.

Congress missed an opportunity to strengthen basic Medicare by adding a guaranteed prescription drug benefit as part of the program. Rather, it spent nearly $1 trillion over the next ten years to provide billions of dollars in overpayments to pharmaceutical companies, private insurance companies, and HMOs under the guise of ‘‘choice” and ‘‘competition.”

Those payments were designed to attract younger, healthier seniors away from traditional Medicare and into private plans. These features of the law do not save money, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s independent analysis. Instead, scarce dollars that could be used to close the donut hole or eliminate the $250 deductible were used to weaken basic Medicare. Those beneficiaries who remain in traditional Medicare will be isolated in an underfunded program and will see their monthly premiums skyrocket as a result of phony ‘‘competition.”

The 2003 law also includes a ‘‘cost containment” provision that actually shifts rather than contains costs. By combining the Part A and Part B Trust Funds and creating a new definition of insolvency that caps Medicare’s use of general revenues at 45 percent of total Medicare costs, this provision would force government to cut benefits or raise payroll taxes if this limit is exceeded. More than any other element of the 2003 law, this provision would undermine the entire Medicare system as we know it, shifting greater financial burdens onto those seniors and persons with disabilities who are least able to afford it.I have introduced legislation to eliminate these damaging aspects of the 2003 law. My legislation will authorize the HHS Secretary to use the purchasing power of 40 million seniors and disabled Americans to negotiate lower drug prices. It will guarantee seniors the choice of a nationally available, defined benefit within Medicare. In order to guarantee the financial security of older Americans, we must make every effort to keep the promises we have made to them, and enact these provisions.

What is your position on the death penalty?

Generally the death penalty is a state issue. The vast majority of executions are carried out by the states, not the federal government.

I have concerns about the inconsistent use of the death penalty by the states, and the role that race and economic status plays in the decision of juries and judges to sentence a defendant to death.

I voted in favor of the Justice for All Act, which became law in 2004. DNA is the miracle forensic tool of our lifetimes. It has the power to convict the guilty and to exonerate the innocent. It can end the suffering of people like Kirk Bloodsworth, who endured years on Maryland’s death row before finally getting the chance to prove his innocence. This legislation will help our police officers and our judges. I believe this bill will mean better, faster, and fairer criminal justice.

What is your position on abortion?

The decision whether to bear a child is a highly personal one with which government should not interfere. All women have a right to safe, affordable family planning services and reproductive choice. I support the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, which guarantees women the right to choose. I believe that Congress should keep abortion legal and work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by making education, reproductive health care services, and counseling widely available.

Do you support same-sex marriages? Why?

I have consistently supported legislation to protect the civil rights of all Americans, regardless of their sexual orientation. For example, I believe that Congress should make it illegal to terminate an employee solely on the basis of sexual orientation.

I personally believe that marriage is the union of a man and woman. In 1996, I voted in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which became law with President Clinton’s signature. The Act defined marriage for federal purposes as a legal union between one man and one woman.

The proposed constitutional amendment is unnecessary and could be used to deny other rights to individuals.

Do you support the federal No Child Left Behind law? Why or why not?

The No Child Left Behind Act was intended to ensure that every child in this nation have the opportunity for a quality education and that our schools be held accountable for teaching necessary skills. However, in order for this legislation to be successful and meet its intended goals we must provide adequate funding for the act. This year alone NCLB was underfunded by $500 million. I also believe that some changes should be made to NCLB that would give states flexibility in measuring academic progress and deciding the best ways to improve failing schools.

What state transportation projects are a priority for you and how should we pay for them?

Transportation has always been an engine for Maryland’s growth and development, from the establishment of the Port of Baltimore 300 years ago to the growth of the Washington Metro system in more recent years. But today congestion on our roads and transit system is placing a costly burden on our state’s economy and our daily lives.

I have supported a number of major highway and transit projects across our state: most immediately I support the ICC, the Red Line transit system crossing the Baltimore region from East to West, and the Purple Line and Corridor Cities transit projects in the Washington suburbs. At the same time, we need increase the capacity of the Washington Metro and MARC commuter rail systems to meet demand and continue expanding our existing roads network. Each of these projects needs to be undertaken in an environmentally sound manner and within a strong Smart Growth plan, but we should not accept the traffic congestion and delays we suffer every day in our metropolitan areas.

Dedicated funding is critical to long-term development of our highway, transit and other major transportation infrastructures. Dedicated transportation funds should be used exclusively for transportation projects.

Has Sarbanes-Oxley worked? Is there more the government can do to prevent corporate corruption?

Sarbanes-Oxley was a necessary step in the right direction. It set into place some of the procedural changes needed to remove self-interested motives from accounting by separating auditing and day-to-day accounting functions — so that the foxes are not guarding the henhouse; and added the important step of having corporate heads literally sign-off on financial disclosure documents — so that CEOs cannot say they do not know what is happening in their own companies. We still need to do more. Many of the problems brought to light by the corporate scandals of 2002 were about companies’ treatment of employees’ retirement savings. I have introduced legislation in every Congress since these scandals to require greater diversification of retirement savings, increase accountability during blackout periods, and create a penalty tax on golden parachute payments after a company declares bankruptcy. Corporations have an obligation to employees and shareholders alike to be forthright and transparent in their financial dealings, and we in Congress need to ensure that companies are holding up their end of the bargain.